KG1
Registered user
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2010
- Messages
- 1,212
- Reaction score
- 36
Hear, Hear.
GUILTY Australia - Jill Meagher, 29, Melbourne, 22 Sep 2012 #5
- Thread starter Salem
- Start date
- Status
Hear, Hear.
Eireann
go Brách
Eireann
go Brách
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/jill-meaghers-final-moments-on-a-fateful-path/story-fnat79vb-1226598588787
Wonder what they mean by 'embarass' her friends and family?
Eireann
go Brách
One thing I also noticed watching the footage of the white astra enter and leave the lane, was that he used the indicator of the car both times. Seems so cool and natural, doesn't it? To see that even after 4am in a deserted area, AB thought to use the indicators to show what way he was turning.
Video clip is best, but here is a still with the indicator light flash highlighted in red.
Video clip is best, but here is a still with the indicator light flash highlighted in red.
But her family doesn't want these details to be released. You can want all the cold hard facts all you like but it doesn't require any special imagination to realise it's going to be very graphic and rather horrendous.
Please let us give Jill some dignity. In an electronic age where information will live on indefinitely, these things don't need to be released in my opinion. Just imagine if this was you, or someone you knew. Would you want such information to be so readily available for all eternity? It's like when Steve Irwin died, everyone wanted to see his death video, thankfully it never came out.
I hope the full details are never ever released for the sake of her and her family.
I refer to the evidence where the couple in the room near Hope Street overhear a woman saying "get out of there".
Is it just me or does it seem almost impossible that this was Jill?
What strikes me about this is that if it actually was her (and the police/prosecutor must have thought so to get these two to testify), then if only she had screamed or yelled for help, maybe the couple would have called the police straight away? <modsnip>It just seems like such a completely random thing to say, and to be able to say it multiple times apparently, I just simply do not believe that who they heard was Jill. Surely he would have stopped her from saying anything.
Also, as a new member, I just wanted to say that I hope this dog burns in hell. I like how he postures about hoping the death penalty gets reinstated but still decided to plead not guilty to murder. Absolutely piece of garbage.
Is it just me or does it seem almost impossible that this was Jill?
What strikes me about this is that if it actually was her (and the police/prosecutor must have thought so to get these two to testify), then if only she had screamed or yelled for help, maybe the couple would have called the police straight away? <modsnip>It just seems like such a completely random thing to say, and to be able to say it multiple times apparently, I just simply do not believe that who they heard was Jill. Surely he would have stopped her from saying anything.
Also, as a new member, I just wanted to say that I hope this dog burns in hell. I like how he postures about hoping the death penalty gets reinstated but still decided to plead not guilty to murder. Absolutely piece of garbage.
By "embarrass her family", I think it's just a way of saying they are trying to preserve her dignity. They don't want people to remember Jill by the details of what happened to her.
I'm not sure I want to know any more. I already find the case highly distressing as it is. The case of the Indian woman left me physically sick and made me wonder if it's beneficial for society to be bombarded with this sort of information. Whether we realise it or not it has a negative impact psychologically, at least for those particularly sensitive. In my opinion, the rights of the family trump all else.
I'm not sure I want to know any more. I already find the case highly distressing as it is. The case of the Indian woman left me physically sick and made me wonder if it's beneficial for society to be bombarded with this sort of information. Whether we realise it or not it has a negative impact psychologically, at least for those particularly sensitive. In my opinion, the rights of the family trump all else.
One thing I also noticed watching the footage of the white astra enter and leave the lane, was that he used the indicator of the car both times. Seems so cool and natural, doesn't it? To see that even after 4am in a deserted area, AB thought to use the indicators to show what way he was turning.
Video clip is best, but here is a still with the indicator light flash highlighted in red.
Hi Eireann, fellow Irish person here!
That's a good point regarding the indicator, I also noticed that on the footage. The guy looks like a pro, doesnt he? To me it actually makes it look more suspicious, like hes trying too hard to act natural. I know I wouldnt bother to indicate after 4am in a deserted area. I felt a real shudder watching that footage of him turning into that lane, so sad :-(
I also noticed him holding the door open for his girlfriend as they entered the Quiet Man pub earlier in the night, couldnt be more in contrast to how he treated another lady later on
One point I wonder about is how Bayley got into Brunswick in the first place. He must have driven and parked there. Given we know that he was following Jill from around Sparta Place, then his car must have been parked somewhere around Victoria Street. There is a distance of 306m between Victoria Street and Hope Street. I always had an untested assumption that because the crime occurred around Hope Street, that Bayley must have been parked around there. Now I doubt that- the crime location is kind of a destination, but Sparta Place is like the beginning. So it makes more sense that he would be parked around Victoria Street.
So, given that he walked so far north up along Sydney Road (to Hope Street), somehow he had to get back south (back to Victoria Street); I wonder if he took the backstreets or walked back down Sydney Road again? If he did, then all of the cctv camera footage would have captured him again, walking back down towards the city (south) after the crime. If he didn’t walk the whole way down Sydney Road, from Hope Street, then at least part of his walk might have been, thus exposing him to cctv. I wonder where his car was parked.
So, given that he walked so far north up along Sydney Road (to Hope Street), somehow he had to get back south (back to Victoria Street); I wonder if he took the backstreets or walked back down Sydney Road again? If he did, then all of the cctv camera footage would have captured him again, walking back down towards the city (south) after the crime. If he didn’t walk the whole way down Sydney Road, from Hope Street, then at least part of his walk might have been, thus exposing him to cctv. I wonder where his car was parked.
rez125
Former Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2012
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 1,055
Thanks Mendoza, I wasn't aware of any articles about him detailing prior offences. Apart from the Geelong incident.
Wasn't aware he changed his name either!
Alice Bernadette
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2008
- Messages
- 77
- Reaction score
- 4
It's a complicated issue. Personally I don't think it impacts on the dignity of the victim. The victim is completely innocent and it is just unfortunate that they crossed the path of a predator. All my empathy is with the victim and their family. I agree that it should be up to the family if they want details kept confidential.
I remember when Anita Cobby was murdered and when everyone knew the barbarity of her murderers people were so outraged that they protested and let the powers that be know what they felt about the scumbags. They will never be released from prison.
I am one that thinks the public should know the depravity of these monsters. This Bayley creep is trying to show himself as not the monster that he is. It should come out what they do to the victim so that people are aware of the complete callousness they have for women and to make sure they are locked away for good.
In the Greenough Murders in Geraldton the details were sealed from the public because they were so horrific but guess what? The murderer William Mitchell is eligible for parole this year. If the crime was so horrendous that details had to be kept from the public why does that creep have any hope of being released back into society?
Greenough Family Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just some random thoughts on the prevailing discussion about release of sensitive details of the case:
The benefit of releasing all of the horrible details of the crime is to extract a social good: to galvanise public opinion for reform of laws to keep sickos like Bayley off the streets for longer and for more stringent monitoring. There is an emphasis on rehabilitation- often failed- for offenders like Bayley and not enough emphasis on protecting the public from harm by these evidently pathological men.
There is the concern of the private, the family, and the further grief and embarrassment they would doubtlessly endure if their Jill was graphically portrayed as defiled. This concern needs to be weighed up against the public concern of the social benefit which could potentially flow in consequence of an outraged public demanding reform of obviously inadequate laws regarding these prolific, habitual, determined, recalcitrant offenders.
These are some relevant contradictory thoughts:
1. I want to know what happened to Jill because I simply do not know what happened- I cannot really fathom the depth of depravity of a person like Bayley. That is, what was the extent of his mental latitude when he knew no one was watching? There is a difference between what one does in private and what one does while observed by others. Bayley obviously never intended to be observed during these actions; thus he went out on a limb and did things. What things precisely? To be perfectly truthful, I am inclined to believe Bayley was a nice guy- everyone who knew him says it; and I believe he would have been a great bloke to have a beer with. In fact, he reminds me of David Warner of the Australian cricket team (no offence to Warner)- if only Bayley channelled his energies positively instead of destructively. Now, I find it difficult to hate a man about whom I feel that way; thus I need to know the facts of what actions he committed. Failing those facts, I cannot see Bayley as the monster we are told he is- I am told to take on faith that he is bad, yet we all have testimony from people of various parts of society saying he was a good bloke. Why should i trust the police/judiciary/parole board when it was precisely that group that didn't do a tough enough job leading to this outrage! I'll make up my own mind, thankyou very much. Now hand over the facts and the cops can keep their opinions to themselves.
2. Should the judge decide on our behalf- put trust solely into the judiciary to get it right for the rest of us? A specialist system where only some trawl through the nasty material so that the rest of us escape the tortures? Just like a soldier doing the dirty work most of us in civil society cannot? I am not sure- I think there is civic duty involved in actively participating in a society- we live in a democracy and should make informed decisions as to who we elect (not based on personality though on policy preference) and we should also make informed decisions as to the laws governing our civilisation- based on the cold hard facts of reality. I fail to see how one can make an informed decision as to rape laws and punishments if one simply is ignorant of the details of cases. If being ignorant is so great, then judges should be ignorant, too, and rule willy nilly. To some extent it is natural that professionals will decide on our behalf, but there is also a certain wilful ignorance I want to counter: those people who look not to be upset about this and therefore actively seek not to know. Those people's attitude is very wrong. Maybe being upset about what happened is precisely what we need, and without it we are lying to ourselves, cocooning ourselves, and not confronting the reality of the world we live in. We should not as a society become dependent on professionals to absolve us of our civic duty to democratically participate in our social space in engaging in discussing laws and pushing for reform. How many times have we heard about old, out-of-touch judges offering paltry punishment to criminals? Maybe we should wake up- read the facts- become outraged and agitate for reform, a reform which certainly will not come if we are ignorant of the facts. I’m sick of police and judges deciding for me- those very-same people who release the Bayleys of the world back onto the streets only to reoffend- and then the media filtering it even further, for sensationalism, perhaps. The truth is indeed a rare commodity, though we must democratise it and release information, a kind of wikileaks for justice, a justi-leaks. Just as a corollary to this point, I believe the government also takes funding into consideration: harsh laws mean more inmates, which costs more financing. So while we’re weighing up the sensitivities and possible follow-on embarrassments and torments to Jill’s family and friends of a complete release of the facts, the politicians are as always weighing up the figures (not the facts).
3. I am mindful of the hurt it would cause Jill’s family if the facts were released. And I am almost tempted to say that they should not be released on the strength of that concern alone. To show humanity and compassion to her family. Though I am also mindful that Sarah Cafferkey was killed a mere 49 days after Jill, and there will be future murders if facts- in both cases- are not released to truly horrify the public, thus inspiring them to action.
At some point, and this is a painful truth to concede, the public overrides the private. Jill, at some point, became a very public figure- for all the wrong reasons, sadly. Bayley, too, did become a public figure, though he was always in control of his destiny (leaving aside neurological arguments to the contrary stating he could not control his libido, therefore should be granted leniency for his affliction; those seeking safe-harbour behind that claim then expose themselves to pharmacological solutions for such diseases: chemical castration; though I am sceptical Bayley would willingly submit to such cures for his professed illness, which yet again reveals his self-serving ways).
I have not resolved what I believe. I certainly do believe that not everyone should read the details, as not everyone is equipped to handle the truth. That is fine. Though more people should read them outside of professional and official channels. Further, it annoys me to know that the police would be passing this file around and they’d all ‘unofficially’ have access to it, though we in the public get stiffed again- as always- by officialdom.
This hasn’t just happened to Jill- something also has happened to the rest of us; and as an ‘us’, we have rights which extend to knowing what happened amongst us to one of us. I’m really annoyed by people who actively seek to not know. For those who are genuinely concerned they cannot handle it; that is fine. But I suspect there is another group of people who are shirking their responsibility to know to become informed citizens. The latter group really annoys me because while they’re sitting on their hands protecting their sensitive consciences, the Bayleys are prowling and inflicting more harm, and our lax laws- which we’re all responsible for- remain unmoved.
The benefit of releasing all of the horrible details of the crime is to extract a social good: to galvanise public opinion for reform of laws to keep sickos like Bayley off the streets for longer and for more stringent monitoring. There is an emphasis on rehabilitation- often failed- for offenders like Bayley and not enough emphasis on protecting the public from harm by these evidently pathological men.
There is the concern of the private, the family, and the further grief and embarrassment they would doubtlessly endure if their Jill was graphically portrayed as defiled. This concern needs to be weighed up against the public concern of the social benefit which could potentially flow in consequence of an outraged public demanding reform of obviously inadequate laws regarding these prolific, habitual, determined, recalcitrant offenders.
These are some relevant contradictory thoughts:
1. I want to know what happened to Jill because I simply do not know what happened- I cannot really fathom the depth of depravity of a person like Bayley. That is, what was the extent of his mental latitude when he knew no one was watching? There is a difference between what one does in private and what one does while observed by others. Bayley obviously never intended to be observed during these actions; thus he went out on a limb and did things. What things precisely? To be perfectly truthful, I am inclined to believe Bayley was a nice guy- everyone who knew him says it; and I believe he would have been a great bloke to have a beer with. In fact, he reminds me of David Warner of the Australian cricket team (no offence to Warner)- if only Bayley channelled his energies positively instead of destructively. Now, I find it difficult to hate a man about whom I feel that way; thus I need to know the facts of what actions he committed. Failing those facts, I cannot see Bayley as the monster we are told he is- I am told to take on faith that he is bad, yet we all have testimony from people of various parts of society saying he was a good bloke. Why should i trust the police/judiciary/parole board when it was precisely that group that didn't do a tough enough job leading to this outrage! I'll make up my own mind, thankyou very much. Now hand over the facts and the cops can keep their opinions to themselves.
2. Should the judge decide on our behalf- put trust solely into the judiciary to get it right for the rest of us? A specialist system where only some trawl through the nasty material so that the rest of us escape the tortures? Just like a soldier doing the dirty work most of us in civil society cannot? I am not sure- I think there is civic duty involved in actively participating in a society- we live in a democracy and should make informed decisions as to who we elect (not based on personality though on policy preference) and we should also make informed decisions as to the laws governing our civilisation- based on the cold hard facts of reality. I fail to see how one can make an informed decision as to rape laws and punishments if one simply is ignorant of the details of cases. If being ignorant is so great, then judges should be ignorant, too, and rule willy nilly. To some extent it is natural that professionals will decide on our behalf, but there is also a certain wilful ignorance I want to counter: those people who look not to be upset about this and therefore actively seek not to know. Those people's attitude is very wrong. Maybe being upset about what happened is precisely what we need, and without it we are lying to ourselves, cocooning ourselves, and not confronting the reality of the world we live in. We should not as a society become dependent on professionals to absolve us of our civic duty to democratically participate in our social space in engaging in discussing laws and pushing for reform. How many times have we heard about old, out-of-touch judges offering paltry punishment to criminals? Maybe we should wake up- read the facts- become outraged and agitate for reform, a reform which certainly will not come if we are ignorant of the facts. I’m sick of police and judges deciding for me- those very-same people who release the Bayleys of the world back onto the streets only to reoffend- and then the media filtering it even further, for sensationalism, perhaps. The truth is indeed a rare commodity, though we must democratise it and release information, a kind of wikileaks for justice, a justi-leaks. Just as a corollary to this point, I believe the government also takes funding into consideration: harsh laws mean more inmates, which costs more financing. So while we’re weighing up the sensitivities and possible follow-on embarrassments and torments to Jill’s family and friends of a complete release of the facts, the politicians are as always weighing up the figures (not the facts).
3. I am mindful of the hurt it would cause Jill’s family if the facts were released. And I am almost tempted to say that they should not be released on the strength of that concern alone. To show humanity and compassion to her family. Though I am also mindful that Sarah Cafferkey was killed a mere 49 days after Jill, and there will be future murders if facts- in both cases- are not released to truly horrify the public, thus inspiring them to action.
At some point, and this is a painful truth to concede, the public overrides the private. Jill, at some point, became a very public figure- for all the wrong reasons, sadly. Bayley, too, did become a public figure, though he was always in control of his destiny (leaving aside neurological arguments to the contrary stating he could not control his libido, therefore should be granted leniency for his affliction; those seeking safe-harbour behind that claim then expose themselves to pharmacological solutions for such diseases: chemical castration; though I am sceptical Bayley would willingly submit to such cures for his professed illness, which yet again reveals his self-serving ways).
I have not resolved what I believe. I certainly do believe that not everyone should read the details, as not everyone is equipped to handle the truth. That is fine. Though more people should read them outside of professional and official channels. Further, it annoys me to know that the police would be passing this file around and they’d all ‘unofficially’ have access to it, though we in the public get stiffed again- as always- by officialdom.
This hasn’t just happened to Jill- something also has happened to the rest of us; and as an ‘us’, we have rights which extend to knowing what happened amongst us to one of us. I’m really annoyed by people who actively seek to not know. For those who are genuinely concerned they cannot handle it; that is fine. But I suspect there is another group of people who are shirking their responsibility to know to become informed citizens. The latter group really annoys me because while they’re sitting on their hands protecting their sensitive consciences, the Bayleys are prowling and inflicting more harm, and our lax laws- which we’re all responsible for- remain unmoved.
DrWatson
Verified Thoracic and Vascular Surgeon
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,390
- Reaction score
- 11
I have a suspicion that the "get out of there" comment was referring to the accused's attempts to penetrate something other than the "usual"... sorry for the graphic images this may conjure up.
unfortunately, that's the same impression i had. allowing for the broken english of the witnesses, of course; but in that case, who knows what was said.
I'll tell you what, i'll settle for this compromise: we do not publicly release autopsy reports or transcrips of Bayley's interview with the police in which he makes full, frank, formal, lengthy, detailed admissions. But we do release cctv footage from Ovens Street- provided that it shows the kidnapping, but if all it shows is the car, then forget it.
i think a pertinent concern is the family's reaction to the release of details.
i think a pertinent concern is the family's reaction to the release of details.
CuriousGrace
WS Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 756
- Reaction score
- 6
<modsnip>
Isn't it disgusting her family & husband having to go through a trial knowing 110% it was him and having to relive and breathe this nightmare in the courts. Also my tax payer dollars contributing to his jail existence. No offence but we DO need the death penalty and we need it now.
All I can say is, Jill's mum should be so proud her daughter. She has changed the lives of many women I know and we will be eternally grateful. Jill's story has touched me, I think about her constantly and I truly hope her family will be able to grieve in private knowing justice has been served. This must be so heart wrenching for them.
Isn't it disgusting her family & husband having to go through a trial knowing 110% it was him and having to relive and breathe this nightmare in the courts. Also my tax payer dollars contributing to his jail existence. No offence but we DO need the death penalty and we need it now.
All I can say is, Jill's mum should be so proud her daughter. She has changed the lives of many women I know and we will be eternally grateful. Jill's story has touched me, I think about her constantly and I truly hope her family will be able to grieve in private knowing justice has been served. This must be so heart wrenching for them.
The lawyer said his client had spent most of his life in jail and was currently on parole until March 17, 2013.
http://aussiecriminals.com.au/2012/...dly-raped-and-murdered-jill-meagher/#comments
5 days later, on the 22/03/2012 is the 6 month anniversary of Jill's murder.
Our system is pathetically weak.
http://aussiecriminals.com.au/2012/...dly-raped-and-murdered-jill-meagher/#comments
5 days later, on the 22/03/2012 is the 6 month anniversary of Jill's murder.
Our system is pathetically weak.
- Status
Similar threads
Staff online
-
TriciaManager Websleuths.com
-
SillybillyAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 128
- Guests online
- 2,925
- Total visitors
- 3,053